Criminal law generally adheres to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each type of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows significant discretion to judges in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability raised by the specific facts of each case. Sentencing must incorporate a policy of correction.

The determination of a sentence in a given case depends on a variety of considerations, including the nature of the crime, the manner of its commission, the motive that impelled it, and the character and antecedents of the accused. The extreme penalty of death should not be inflicted except in the gravest cases of extreme culpability. The death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment, given the relevant circumstances of the crime.

Judges, in essence, affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice, sentences are largely determined by other considerations. Sometimes, it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are cited to justify a sentence. At other times, the tragic results of the crime are considered. Inevitably, these considerations lead to a departure from just deserts as the basis of punishment, creating cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.

If the case is established, the accused can be convicted of both major and minor offenses, but no separate sentence needs to be awarded for the minor offense in light of the substantive sentence awarded for the major offense.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073